ReviewFrontiers in health services2026
Low vision services in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation on visual function and quality of life in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Understanding the availability, access, and outcomes of low vision services (LVS) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is essential to reduce the burden and enhance the quality of life for patients with residual vision. The aim of the study is to systematically evaluate the availability, accessibility, utilization, and functional outcomes of LVS in SSA from both provider and patient perspectives. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted across five databases-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, African Journals Online, and Google Scholar-from inception through June 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on any aspect of LVS delivery within SSA were eligible for inclusion. Extracted data were synthesized narratively, and methodological quality was rigorously assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. Results: Eleven studies from six SSA countries met the inclusion criteria, with an equal number focusing on service providers and patients (including one overlapping study). Overall, LVS were found to be limited and unevenly distributed across the region, with Ghana demonstrating the most comprehensive coverage. While basic clinical assessments were commonly reported, access to advanced diagnostic evaluations and comprehensive rehabilitation services remained scarce. Optical aids such as magnifiers and telescopes were more widely available than non-optical devices or structured training programs. Studies assessing functional outcomes reported significant improvements in visual acuity, particularly for distance vision, following intervention. However, multiple barriers to service delivery were identified, including limited infrastructure, insufficient provider training, high costs of devices, financial constraints, low public awareness, and persistent social stigma surrounding vision impairment. Conclusion: The LVS in SSA are still very limited, even though studies report measurable improvements in visual acuity following intervention. There is an urgent need to invest in training health workers, integrating services, making devices affordable, and increasing public awareness. Improving these services is crucial for fair access to eye care and achieving Universal Health Coverage in the region. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251112575, PROSPERO CRD420251112575.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.